[ RadSafe ] ALARA, BRC ,& regulatoty self-interest

[WILLIAM LIPTON]

I am truly grateful that I have not become so cynical.  You might as well say that physicians promote illness or police officers promote crime, since it provides a good living.
The NRC has long tried to establish BRC policies, but, for reasons that will not change in the near future, this has not been possible.  A few years ago, I attended a public meeting on clearance of potentially clean materials and equipment form restricted areas.  This was an attempt to establish a risk based system for setting acceptable contamination levels for free release.  The public fears expressed at that meeting may not be valid, but they were genuine.  We're getting the best deal possible from the regulators.  In any event, self regulation, through peer groups such as INPO, is much stricter than regulatory requirements.
We have to learn to thrive within these constraints, instead of continually ranting about "unfairness."
Bill Lipton
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Perception is reality.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Cohen <jjcohen at prodigy.net>
To: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>; radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:35:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] ALARA, BRC ,& regulatoty self-interest

Lots of people make a good living regulating the nuclear industry.
Most of this effort is directed toward further reducing radiation doses
that are already quite low.  I have heard many explanations
of why the BRC concept was rejected, but I believe that self-interest
was the primary reason. Nobody wants to kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.  Jerry





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Perle, Sandy" <sperle at mirion.com>
To: "Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen at prodigy.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] ALARA


>> The clear message that ALARA imparts is that radiation must be
extremely dangerous even at very low dose levels. Otherwise, how could
such extreme control measures be justified?<<

Jerry,

I concur.

More justification for a reasonable and logical "Below Regulatory
Concern" (BRC) threshold. That would eliminate the fear mongering, and allow
implementation of effective measures where the dose reduction is
warranted. This would facilitate significant cost savings, focus on the
real issues and allow the workforce to work on what is important, and,
get the politics out of radiation control and implementation programs.

Sandy

-----------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Mirion Technologies
Dosimetry Services Division
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
+1 (949) 296-1144 (Fax)

Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/



PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE:  This e-mail message and all attachments 
transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the addressee and may 
contain proprietary information of Mirion Technologies and/or its 
affiliates.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, 
copying or other use of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have 
received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by 
replying to the message, delete the original message and all attachments 
from your computer, and destroy any copies you may have made.  Thank you.

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/